Creationists Demand Airtime On 'Cosmos' For The Sake Of Balance

Fromabove
I said it was slang. Call it calculus, whatever. For those who need explaining... it is applying math to time in an effort to determine an outcome and
an expected result. Have you ever heard of NASA because they use calculus all the time.

What you used in that post was about as far from Calculus as lime Jell-O is from Calculus.

Fromabove
Time progression math is a slang term for calculus. But it's the same term.

Please stop making crap up. I've never heard that and I would've heard it if it were real. I just Googled "time progression math" just to be sure
and the only thing that was returned was your post in this thread. I'm not exaggerating either, it literally was the only result.

edit
on 3 28 2014 by Goteborg because: corrected inaccuracy.

I said it was slang. Call it calculus, whatever. For those who need explaining... it is applying math to time in an effort to determine an outcome and
an expected result. Have you ever heard of NASA because they use calculus all the time.

It isn't slang at all. Like I already stated, multi-variable calculus exists and it is usually NOT time based (since time is always an independent
variable). So you are wrong.

To date, there is no math or science that can establish evolution. It just hasn't been proven only assumed.

To be clear on this: you're saying evolutionary theory is not based on legitimate science, and that if evolution were to be replaced as the leading
theory in its field, the replacement theory would have to be scientifically sound?

And following that, what scientifically sound theory are you proposing in place of evolutionary theory?

No theory is needed. Life exists. Why can't it be said that life just is and study that, and that the universe is, and study all of it's wonders.
Then we could leave unanswerable question like where life began and what caused the universe to be as thoughts to ponder. Science cannot answer such
questions and until it can it should just admit it doesn't know.

But it CAN answer those questions. It is already doing it with Evolutionary theory and now has extended to how life began with the Abiogenesis
hypothesis.

Science cannot answer such questions and until it can it should just admit it doesn't know.

And they have.

Religion cannot answer such questions with any evidence outside of a "Holy Book" and so it should admit it doesn't know

Fair enough? What about that?!

Yeah, I kinda slammed my fist down there....sorry, I'll scoop up the spilled salt...*blushes* Oh well...I still mean it. Can you let go of your
bias toward religion? Or are you still fighting off the demons of atheism?

Fromabove
Time progression math is a slang term for calculus. But it's the same term.

Please stop making crap up. I've never heard that and I would've heard it if it were real. I just Googled "time progression math" just to be sure
and the only thing that was returned was your post in this thread. I'm not exaggerating either, it literally was the only result.

edit
on 3 28 2014 by Goteborg because: corrected inaccuracy.

I said it was slang. Call it calculus, whatever. For those who need explaining... it is applying math to time in an effort to determine an outcome and
an expected result. Have you ever heard of NASA because they use calculus all the time.

Slang doesn't show up on the Internet? Really? Apparently your understanding of the Internet is about as deep as your understanding of calculus.

A helpful hint for you, you might want to consider the possibility that there are members of this forum who do really hold degrees in mathematics and
related fields and know a total load when they read it. Take the advice, ignore it...it's your call.

I asked a bunch of questions and was told, "You ask too many questions."

So I said, "What's wrong with that?"

LOL!!!
All my life it's been a habit of mine to sit toward the front and raise my hand frequently.
When I went to graduate school, one of the profs happened to intro the class with a statement about how sometimes the quieter type people don't get
a chance to speak, so if all you eager outspoken folks can give them a chance to speak.....

Oh well.
Sorry, offtopic.

But yes, I truly don't understand why some people are so determined to hang to ideas that have been shown to be weak (if not mythical).

Maybe it just can't be explained. Like a woman who's a mother not being able to explain or describe accurately what it's like to become a
mother.

Anyway, I still vote for science + God = okay. But either way, I have no dog in the fight. I'm mostly here just auditing; and playing
'facilitator'. lol

Actually I think you've done quite well all through this thread. It's hard to stay on topic on this subject. To stay more on topic I think a good
question would be why would some people like Mr. Ham think he would need air time. He would never change anyone's mind who is rooted into evolution
theory.

I believe in creation. I also believe i adaptation and change "within" a species. I love science, but I also love God. As a Christian, I can see the
remarks made in the show that could be offensive to Christians because there easy to recognize as a Christian. But still, I would love to enjoy a
science show that stays in the science arena and stays away fro philosophy. I still plan to watch it so I can comment about it.

Goteborg
A helpful hint for you, you might want to consider the possibility that there are members of this forum who do really hold degrees in mathematics and
related fields and know a total load when they read it. Take the advice, ignore it...it's your call.

I think someone may think that we still take our shoes off to do math problems and wants to try and put one over on us.

Science cannot answer such questions and until it can it should just admit it doesn't know.

And they have.

Religion cannot answer such questions with any evidence outside of a "Holy Book" and so it should admit it doesn't know

Fair enough? What about that?!

Yeah, I kinda slammed my fist down there....sorry, I'll scoop up the spilled salt...*blushes* Oh well...I still mean it. Can you let go of your
bias toward religion? Or are you still fighting off the demons of atheism?

No, I'm not fighting them off. Science cannot answer questions to things it doesn't know. Now, scoop that salt back into the cup.

I asked a bunch of questions and was told, "You ask too many questions."

So I said, "What's wrong with that?"

LOL!!!
All my life it's been a habit of mine to sit toward the front and raise my hand frequently.
When I went to graduate school, one of the profs happened to intro the class with a statement about how sometimes the quieter type people don't get
a chance to speak, so if all you eager outspoken folks can give them a chance to speak.....

Oh well.
Sorry, offtopic.

But yes, I truly don't understand why some people are so determined to hang to ideas that have been shown to be weak (if not mythical).

Maybe it just can't be explained. Like a woman who's a mother not being able to explain or describe accurately what it's like to become a
mother.

Anyway, I still vote for science + God = okay. But either way, I have no dog in the fight. I'm mostly here just auditing; and playing
'facilitator'. lol

Actually I think you've done quite well all through this thread. It's hard to stay on topic on this subject. To stay more on topic I think a good
question would be why would some people like Mr. Ham think he would need air time. He would never change anyone's mind who is rooted into evolution
theory.

It's not about changing someone's mind who has a preconceived bias. It is about educating people about the various different sciences and how we
view the universe. If the show happens to change someone's mind on things, all the better. But educating someone isn't the same thing as arguing a
point.

I believe in creation. I also believe i adaptation and change "within" a species. I love science, but I also love God. As a Christian, I can
see the remarks made in the show that could be offensive to Christians because there easy to recognize as a Christian. But still, I would love to
enjoy a science show that stays in the science arena and stays away fro philosophy. I still plan to watch it so I can comment about it.

I don't believe this statement. Christian fundamentalists are notorious for taking offense to things that contradict their world view, claiming that
the concept in question is attacking Christianity or something. Evolution is just one of those concepts that these fundamentalists do that with. You
appear to be doing it in this very thread actually.

No one has ever show for instance one animal evolving into another except in time gaps covering millions of years. Not in a reasonable time
where successive generation could be seen changing over time.

Okay now you're havering. Pick a point of view, please.

You said above that you have no problem with the Bible and a multi-billion-year-old universe. Then the fact that things change incrementally (to us,
almost imperceptibly ) over time fits in with it very nicely. We KNOW how viri (viruses) mutate, and bacteria - as fast as we can concoct antivenoms
for it. Yet you're still denying?????? Good lord, man. Stem cells, brain cells, all poised and ready for whichever battle it's 'host' finds
itself....

At birth.

Sorry, but again, you're now bordering on being obtuse. And certainly evasive.

Pa leeeeze, give the calculus thing a break now. Let's just admit calculus exists and is useful even for determining events in the progression of
time. Will call them years or something and set them in order like decades, centuries, and eons and such.

And no, evolution is not a proven fact, religion or not. I don't need religion to tell me evolution does not work, and that there is not empirical
evidence to support it.

No one has been able to show the slow and steady change of one animal form into another through years of progression. Such changes should be easy to
find should they not? But no, they only give you a before and after picture.

As for micro-evolution, I call it adaptation because a bacterium is still a bacterium and a virus is a virus. Now show me a virus mating with a
bacteria and creating a new species, that would be cool wouldn't it?

No one has ever show for instance one animal evolving into another except in time gaps covering millions of years. Not in a reasonable time
where successive generation could be seen changing over time.

Okay now you're havering. Pick a point of view, please.

You said above that you have no problem with the Bible and a multi-billion-year-old universe. Then the fact that things change incrementally (to us,
almost imperceptibly ) over time fits in with it very nicely. We KNOW how viri (viruses) mutate, and bacteria - as fast as we can concoct antivenoms
for it. Yet you're still denying?????? Good lord, man. Stem cells, brain cells, all poised and ready for whichever battle it's 'host' finds
itself....

At birth.

Sorry, but again, you're now bordering on being obtuse. And certainly evasive.

I always said that DNA is a program and that all cells are created and designed, even stem cells. We can't confuse adaptation with evolution.

I personally don't have a problem with billions of years. But for evolution theorists haven't shown any reasonable and believable timeline.

Fromabove
Pa leeeeze, give the calculus thing a break now. Let's just admit calculus exists and is useful even for determining events in the progression of
time. Will call them years or something and set them in order like decades, centuries, and eons and such.

Agreed, calculus exists. Just not in any of your posts.

And no, evolution is not a proven fact, religion or not. I don't need religion to tell me evolution does not work, and that there is not
empirical evidence to support it.

Maybe you should check out the links that Grimpachi usually posts, they prove evolution quite succinctly.

No one has been able to show the slow and steady change of one animal form into another through years of progression. Such changes should be
easy to find should they not? But no, they only give you a before and after picture.

Nature may very well be "God at work", and all that we will ever know is how Nature works. I don't see how the show has violated that or suppressed
it. or are you saying that by doing that they are indirectly supporting creation?

I also maybe don't quite get your point. I don't see what all the kerfuffle is about. Science and theology don't have to be enemies.
Religion isn't a necessary part of the equation of "why what occurs, occurs".

Yes I'm saying there is no difference between saying "God created it", "Nature created it" or "The Universe created it". All presuppose
creation or volition of some supreme creative force.

The Cosmos spoke in this language, as do creationists.

What, in your mind, would be a better phrase? "Nature resulted in this"?

No my determination is to get you to post ANYTHING of relevance to back up your position. I've asked over and over and over again and all I get is
lip service and poorly written accounts about how you think evolution happens. I've been more than patient waiting for this and feel that you are
doing me a disservice by insulting my intelligence with concepts like "time progression math is slang for calculus", thinking that the creation of
life has something to do with evolution, shoddy mathematical "proofs" with no math at all in them, and other things. I CAN'T have an open mind to
your view of things, because YOU haven't backed up your position well enough. For instance, I have YET to see you post link ONE backing up your
claims, then you have the GALL to call me close-minded. PLEASE! Learn how to debate son. And no, going by this thread's content, you DON'T know
calculus (or at least don't know it as well as you claim you do).

There is no open conversation with you on this because I can see you're determination to defend evolution. We should stay on topic so that we can at
least have some dialogue.

You and I will always disagree and that will just waste yours and my time.

I wouldn't qualify his posts as defending evolution when there's nothing to defend it from. We're educating you, not battling you. Unless,
of course, you want to fight the scientific facts. In which case, go right on ahead.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.